The Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office officially announced on Thursday that it had filed 21 criminal charges against Sable Offshore Corp., including five felony charges of violating the California Water Code.
Other charges by the DA include 11 misdemeanor violations alleging that Sable was diverting or obstructing a river, stream or lake. An additional five misdemeanors were filed for accusing the company of placing excavated materials where they could pass into state waters.
The District Attorney’s Office alleges that those actions violate the California Water Code and the Fish and Game Code. The charges allege that Sable discharged material into local creeks and waterways, including Arroyo Quemada and tributaries to Nojoqui Creek.
Sable responded to the charges by calling them a “politically motivated attack” and that the allegations are “inflammatory and extremely misleading.”
“All of the repairs and excavations were supervised by a certified independent biologist and cultural resource professional and Office of State Fire Marshal personnel. No wildlife were adversely affected. All of these previously disturbed areas have been or are being remediated in accordance with state and local erosion control mitigation measures,” Sable said in a statement.
The criminal case is set for a Nov. 4 hearing in Santa Barbara County Superior Court.
In response to the charges, the Environmental Defense Center criticized Sable and said the company could not be trusted to operate in the state of California.
“No matter how Sable spins it, these are serious charges, and they raise big questions about the company’s integrity and its ability to operate risky facilities without causing more harm to our state,” said Linda Krop, chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Center.
The work on the pipeline includes construction to CA-342, part of the Santa Ynez Unit. The pipeline ruptured in 2015, causing the Refugio oil spill and spilling 123,000 gallons of oil onto the shore and ocean.
Sable has repeatedly done work on the pipeline in 2024 and 2025. The company was issued multiple cease-and-desist orders by the California Coastal Commission.
Sable continued work and claimed that the previous permits it obtained when it purchased the equipment granted it the right to do repairs. The commission disagreed and levied an $18 million fine against Sable for violating its orders.
Sable’s Other Legal Issues
The new criminal charge against Sable comes a week after a U.S. District judge denied a motion to transfer oil permits and returned the decision of the transfer to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors.
On Sept. 12, Judge Dolly Gee instructed the Board of Supervisors to re-vote on the transfer after the board reached a tie vote on whether to approve the transfer.
According to the court’s decision, the board will be required to hold its new vote within 60 days of Judge Gee’s decision. If the board is unable to reach a decision, the topic will return to the board within 45 days and every 45 days until a conclusive decision is reached.
The County of Santa Barbara declined to comment on the case because of its policy of not discussing ongoing litigation.
The original vote in February ended in a deadlock of 2-2 after Third District Supervisor Joan Hartmann recused herself, citing a pipeline located under her property.
However, the court documents state that Hartmann may not have a conflict of interest and may be able to participate in future votes. The filing states that Hartmann received a letter in June 2025 from the California Fair Political Practices Commission saying she may not have a conflict of interest in this instance.
Sable, which purchased the pipeline, tried to obtain the permits from ExxonMobil. However, the transfer of the permits did not go through after the Board of Supervisors was unable to reach a majority vote.
Sable then tried to sue Santa Barbara County, saying the final decision should revert to the vote by the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. The commission approved the permit transfers, but the topic was appealed to the Board of Supervisors.
Critics of the permit transfer applauded the court’s decision and said they would continue to petition the Board of Supervisors to deny the transfer.
“We look forward to having another opportunity for the public to weigh in on this project and highlight Sable’s operational history,” Krop said.
The pipeline was owned by Plains All-American Pipeline at the time of the spill and was transferred to ExxonMobil. Sable purchased the three offshore platforms, processing facilities and transportation pipelines from ExxonMobil in 2022.